Player Stats

Buddy Johnson College Stats

Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.

Stat Footprint

Career production snapshot

Tackles
203
TFL
23.5
Sacks
5.5
QB hurries
6
Passes defended
4
Touchdowns
3

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2017 PostseasonTexas A&M81-0--025.3
2017 Regular SeasonTexas A&M8191.513-025.3
2018 PostseasonTexas A&M1070.50--037
2018 Regular SeasonTexas A&M10204.50.5--037
2019 PostseasonTexas A&M1260.50--066.6
2019 Regular SeasonTexas A&M12659131166.6
2020 PostseasonTexas A&M10102.51--070.9
2020 Regular SeasonTexas A&M107552-3270.9

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2020 Postseason

Texas A&M paired 14.5 primary output with 49.9 efficiency.

Supporting note

2020 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 49.9 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2020 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Mississippi State

Win with 4 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.

Analysis workspace

Season Workbench

Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2020 Postseason · Texas A&M

Games

10

Havoc Plays / G

1.4

Efficiency

49.9

Usage

11.7

Consistency

36.3

Best Game by takeover score

Mississippi State

Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.

Active game

Hover over a point

Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.

Game-by-Game Trend

Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.

12345678910

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. North Carolina: 3.5. Vanderbilt: 0. Alabama: 0. Florida: 1. Mississippi State: 4. Arkansas: 3. South Carolina: 0. LSU: 2. Auburn: 1. Tennessee: 0

Volume vs Efficiency

Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.

Low volumeHigh quality

High volumeHigh quality

Low volumeLower quality

High volumeLower quality

Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.

Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. North Carolina: 10 by 76.7. Vanderbilt: 11 by 45.8. Alabama: 8 by 33.3. Florida: 11 by 55.8. Mississippi State: 12 by 90. Arkansas: 12 by 80. South Carolina: 3 by 12.5. LSU: 9 by 57.5. Auburn: 7 by 39.2. Tennessee: 2 by 8.3

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins1.6 · Games = 9 · +1.6 vs Losses
Losses0 · Games = 1 · -1.6 vs Wins